Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USB-IF Confusingly Merges USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Under New USB 3.2 Branding (macrumors.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-in-a-name dept.

The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), this week announced a rebranding of the USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 specifications, under the USB 3.2 specification. USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 will now be considered previous generations of the USB 3.2 specification. From a report: Going forward, USB 3.1 Gen 1 (transfer speeds up to 5Gb/s), which used to be USB 3.0 prior to a separate rebranding, will be called USB 3.2 Gen 1, while USB 3.1 Gen 2 (transfer speeds up to 10Gb/s) will now be known as USB 3.2 Gen 2. What used to be considered USB 3.2 will now be USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 because if offers twice the throughput speeds of USB 3.1 Gen 2, now USB 3.2 Gen 2. If the swap between USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 2 to USB 3.2 wasn't confusing enough, each of these specifications also has a marketing term. The new USB 3.2 Gen 1 with transfer speeds up to 5Gb/s is SuperSpeed USB, while USB 3.2 Gen 2 with transfer speeds up to 10Gb/s is known as SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. The USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 specification with transfer speeds up to 20Gb/s is known as SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.

84 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. USB - iffy by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Well it work? Iffy with a chance of putting it in the wrong side up.

    1. Re:USB - iffy by Megol · · Score: 5, Funny

      We'll C about that.

    2. Re:USB - iffy by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Rebranding: why don't they call it 5G?

      Try new USB 5G!

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:USB - iffy by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Is it USB 2 B or not 2 B?

      I'd like to see some OS support a USB-C to USB-C data connection between computers other than just Apple. I should be able to push 5, 10, or even 20 Gbps between computers with a simple and cheap USB-C to USB-C peripheral cable, not a $50 specialty cable with a lump in the middle. Apple gets it to work, at 40 Gbps even, with a cable far cheaper than $50.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re: USB - iffy by tigersha · · Score: 1

      No Trump said US made 2G is better than Chinese made 7G

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  2. And for those of us old enough to remember by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is par for the course -
    USB 2.0 full speed
    USB 2.0 high speed.
    Where USB 2.0 "full" speed was USB 1.1 speeds.

    1. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by knarfling · · Score: 4, Funny
      But I want "Ludicrous Speed."

      Which USB spec will give me Ludicrous Speed?

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
    2. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's all that much worse when you closelycompare the names:

      usb 1.1 renamed to "usb 2.0 full speed"
      usb 2.0 renamed to "usb 2.0 high speed"

      And of course the names and logos were very similar and easily confused unless you read the fine print.

      Rumor was at the time that there were hardware manufacturers with warehouses full of PC motherboards they couldn't sell "because everyone wanted usb 2.0", so they muscled/bribed the standards committee to rename usb 1.1 off the books so they could empty their warehouses by hustling the public. So many people were posting at the time they couldn't understand how their computer they just built with a "good new usb 2 board" was running slow, where to find drivers to "fix" it, etc. It's easy to see what usb 2.0 was "full of".

      This probably is falling along similar lines. More bribes to help manufacturers not pay for their bad planning/overstock by robbing the public.

      What kills me is the irony. It's a standard, the purpose is to prevent confusion, and they're leveraging it to create confusion, that they can take advantage of.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by jrumney · · Score: 1

      That would be USB 4.8 Gen 27 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    4. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I remember at the times that that was the common reason (to sell off old stock).
      Worse was when you were trying to find motherboards and peripherals that all claimed to have USB 2.0 support (with no speed descriptions) Ok - is that USB 2.0/1.1 support or USB 2.0/2.0 support?
      Let alone looking for that stupid "red flag" indicating high speed support which you could only seem to find on the cables. (Which was easy to add because the pin outs were the same!)

    5. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by Solandri · · Score: 1

      They repeated the inanity for USB 3.1.

      USB 3.0 using the USB-A connector was renamed to USB 3.1.Gen 1
      The higher 10 Gbps speed on USB-A was named USB 3.1 Gen 2
      USB 3.1 using the USB-C connector is USB 3.1 Type C..

    6. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      This probably is falling along similar lines.

      Devils advocate. I highly doubt it. Unlike a short period after USB2.0 was released currently there's little to no devices on the market that actually make use of USB 3.2 gen whatever the fuck the fastest USB3.1 thing was called. There's very little demand for it and if you drop top dollar on a motherboard right now you'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports and many current cases still don't offer them.

      I highly doubt there's any pressure here beyond: Well we did it the last few times so people expect us to do it now.

    7. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 2

      According to the rumor mill it was Intel who persuaded the USB committee to rename USB 3.0 to USB 3.1 gen 1 since Intel added support for USB 3.0 SuperSpeed+ (10Gbps) relatively late, just a year ago, and Intel partners and Intel itself needed to flog their old technologically inferior products (chipsets, motherboards, PCs, laptops, etc).

    8. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Also, USB 3.0 is a completely new protocol with its pins tacked on the side of old USB 1/2 connectors. It's like gluing serial, parallel and PS/2 ports together into a single lump and calling it "universal".

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Thunderbolt 3

    10. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by edwdig · · Score: 1

      Rumor was at the time that there were hardware manufacturers with warehouses full of PC motherboards they couldn't sell "because everyone wanted usb 2.0", so they muscled/bribed the standards committee to rename usb 1.1 off the books so they could empty their warehouses by hustling the public. So many people were posting at the time they couldn't understand how their computer they just built with a "good new usb 2 board" was running slow, where to find drivers to "fix" it, etc. It's easy to see what usb 2.0 was "full of".

      Sorry to ruin your bubble here, but there wasn't any malicious intent here.

      USB 1.0 defined two speeds - 1.5 Mbps "Low Speed" and 12 Mbps "Full Speed". Things like mice and keyboards used Low Speed, while things like drives used Full Speed.

      Originally USB was just intended to replace the mess of accessory ports on a PC - PS/2, serial, parallel, gamepad, etc. After it got popular, they realized they needed a lot more bandwidth and USB 2.0 "High Speed" was created. "Full Speed" vs "High Speed" was certainly awkward, but there were already millions of "Full Speed" devices on the market. USB 3.x "Super Speed" followed from the same thought process.

      I have no idea what they're thinking with USB 3.2 tho.

    11. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they weren't renamed. It's just the version 2.0 of the spec includes specifications for low speed, full speed, and high speed devices. It is possible to have a low-speed or full-speed device that complies with the relevant sections of the USB 2.0 spec, and it would be correct to state that the device is USB 2.0 compliant. Devices built to the 1.0 version of the spec don't necessary comply with all parameters of the 2.0 spec, especially sections that have been modified/clarified. This is completely separate form whether the devices are low speed or full speed. (1.0 doesn't define high speed devices, obviously.)

      The problem was using the version of the spec in marketing. Since all devices that meet the newer specs are backwards compatible (they have to to meet the spec), the version number is not very relevant. USB-IF should have made sure that in the labeling, the "low", "full", and "high" is printed larger than the version number. The USB-IF defines allowed logo/labeling, so they could have done this.

      So it's not that they renamed things, but they were complicit in the deception by not promoting clear labeling which is well within their power to do.

       

    12. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The confusion here is because there are actually two separate parameters: speed and protocol version.

      USB 2.0 wasn't just the addition of the High Speed 480Mbps mode, it also revised the software side protocol a great deal too. Worse still, the protocol stuff was really hard to explain to consumers and largely irrelevant for them anyway, but if the box said "USB 1.1" it was destined for the discount bin.

      The same thing is happening here and everyone is still confused about it. USB 3.2 is the specification version, which incorporates all the older specs and updates them a little. Then you have the additional 20Gbps mode. Manufacturers are supposed to build to the USB 3.2 spec now, even if they only support the 5Gbps mode.

      It's got as bad as Wifi versions. As a consumer it's very difficult to know what you are buying and how it will perform, even if you are a techy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by IsThisNickTaken · · Score: 1

      You beat me too it. When I read the summary, I looked up a link to the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    14. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by e432776 · · Score: 1

      This might be what happens when engineers are in charge of branding (?) No disparagement, but these names are going to be extremely confusing for the average person. Perhaps folks in marketing are needed after all (!)

    15. Re:And for those of us old enough to remember by v1 · · Score: 1

      actually iirc they can do 10, 20, 30, OR 40 Gbps.

      And the cable really does matter. I bought two (a cheap 3ft'er and a nice handy 6ft'er) to go with my new higher end USB C enclosure with SSD. It came with a cable too, so I had three cables to test. And they all clearly had their ratings. The cheap 3ft and the 6ft both run 20. The one that came with the enclosure does 40. Very hard to tell apart even when digging into the specs. Impossible visually.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  3. Huh by TimMD909 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who's thinking this stuff up? XBox 360 to XBox One, please hand in your trophy for most confusing versions.

    1. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Linux does alliterative animal names. You couldn't come up with something more senseless than that.

    2. Re:Huh by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      USB Super Sloth Speed?

    3. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who's thinking this stuff up?

      The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF)
      They represent the industry's interests, not the consumer's. Clear, logical and honest naming schemes are not in the interest of the industry. People understanding what they are buying usually results in lower prices.

    4. Re:Huh by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Linux does alliterative animal names. You couldn't come up with something more senseless than that.

      Someone hasn't seen the list of Kingdom Hearts games.

      Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
      Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix
      Kingdom Hearts X (but it's not X, it's Chi)
      Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix
      Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue

    5. Re:Huh by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      You must mean senseless animal names for Linux distribution releases such as:

      Choking Chicken
      Dancing Dragon
      Exercising Elephant
      Fondling Ferret
      Genital Gerbil
      Humping Hamster
      Inventive Impala
      Jacking Jackal
      Kinky Kakapo
      Lubricated Lizard
      Masturbating Monkey
      Nerking Neanderthal
      Opening Octopus
      Pounding Peacock
      Quenched Quail
      Rubbing Rabbit
      Scratching Snake
      Teasing Tang
      Unloading Uguisu
      Varnishing Vulture
      Wanking Weasel
      Yanking Yak

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    6. Re:Huh by tsqr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linux does alliterative animal names. You couldn't come up with something more senseless than that.

      No, Linux doesn't do that. Ubuntu does that.

    7. Re: Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trouble is ABS is compulsory in all new cars since about 2000 in Europe at least. Well my faithful 21 years old Citroën uses LHM for brakes (and direction, and suspension), but that's another story, and it has ABS of course.

    8. Re: Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a good reason why people refuse to believe it. Unlike DOT 3,4, and 5.1, DOT 5 is hydrophobic and compressible. The hydrophobic bit is good, because it will not mix with water. However, DOT 5 will aerate when the anti-lock system is activated, causing catastrophic brake failure. With non-antilock brakes, it makes the pedal squishy and unresponsive. For those two reasons alone, DOT 5 should not be used in any modern vehicle.

      Since modern vehicles typically come from the factory with DOT 3 or 4, DOT 5 should never be used to top it off. The addition of DOT 5 will make the above mentioned issues occur. In other words, don't use DOT 5.

      DOT 5 is great for military use, where fluids are changed less often and exposed to harsh conditions, but it really does not belong on the shelf at any auto parts store.

      DOT 5.1 on the other hand, is useful for race cars which heat their brakes up quite a bit more than a daily driver. If it happens to get mixed in with DOT 3 or 4, meh.

  4. Not Surprising by kackle · · Score: 1

    According to Wikipedia, there are about 22 different connectors for USB (counting male and female). What a mess. I'm in tech and even I have to play games to find the right connector/orientation for devices now and again (made worse with my older eyesight).

    1. Re:Not Surprising by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      There are also non-standard components using the same form factor, e.g. 10-pin USB Mini-B, and some non-USB devices that use the same connectors. Two examples I can give are on two different dashcams; the first has a GPS module that uses a USB Type A connector, but does not appear to be an actual USB device. The second is a dual dashcam, with the rear camera being connected via a cable with 10-pin Mini-B plugs, also using some other protocol. I have not seen any actual implementations of USB 3.0 with a Mini-B connector, so I'm somewhat curious as to why these even exist. I've also seen USB cables/connectors used on PCI extenders.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    2. Re:Not Surprising by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      How are you struggling to find the right cable? Saying there's 22 is stupid. The reality is far simpler:

      The host side has 1 general style that always works, broken up into 3 if you need to pick your exact speed. Type A, Type A SS, and Type C. Other than iGarbage devices there's nothing being shipped that has Type C which also doesn't have Type A SS. All Type A connectors are compatible with each other.

      That leaves us with the other side:
      Type B hasn't been in common use for years and is only found on devices you won't typically plug and unplug very often (reads fixed devices)
      Type B SS is rarer than hens teeth, I've only ever seen it on a single device. A HDD docking station.
      Ultimately it leaves you with Type B mini, Type B micro, and Type C. The Type B micro SS is completely compatible with Type B micro.

      The A side is virtually non existent out there in mini and micro variants, and so is TypeA-B.

      If you buy a device right now it will come with one of only 3 different cables, all of which will connect to a modern computer and are device dependent. If you're juggling more than 3 cables for the "22" (purposeful use of quotes since there's not 22 different connectors) connectors then you're doing something horribly wrong.

    3. Re:Not Surprising by blindseer · · Score: 2

      I have not seen any actual implementations of USB 3.0 with a Mini-B connector, so I'm somewhat curious as to why these even exist.

      The mini-USB connectors are not part of the USB 3.x spec, they don't have the number of pins to support the "super speed" data lines. Too bad for anything with a mini-USB connector, they were left behind at USB 2.0.

      USB 3 only supports the standard A and B, micro A and B, and USB-C. The A ports and connectors are interchangeable between 1.1, 2.0, and 3.x but the B connectors come in 3.x "wide" and 1.1/2.0 "narrow" variants where the wide connectors will not fit in narrow ports, but narrow connectors will fit in wide ports.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Not Surprising by spth · · Score: 1

      Currently on my desk:

      • USB 3 hub, connected to my laptop via type A SS to type B SS cable.
      • USB 2 hub, connected via Type A to type B cable.
      • Scanner, connected via Type A to type B cable.
      • USB keyboard with hub, connected via type A, mouse connected via type A.
      • Blue Ray burner, connected via 2xtype A to mini B cable.
      • A type A SS to micro type B SS cable that I use for connecting an external harddisk for backups.
      • Smartphone connected via type A to micro type B cable.
      • 2 USB to serial cables, type A
      • U-EC6 adapter for wriitng C, connected via type A to mini type B cable.
      • 3 C evaluation boards, two use mini B, one uses micro B.

      A few days ago there was also a type A to type C cable to connect some else's smartphone.

      So there are now at least 6 different types of USB to USB cables on my desk (a few days ago it was at least 7). Seems to me that with USB, one now needs far more different types of cables than back in the days of RS232, parallel port, etc.

    5. Re:Not Surprising by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You have repeated exactly what I said.
      You've listed 12 devices which plug into your PC using the same connector (compatibility) or 2 different connectors (speed).
      On the device side you have 3 different plugs (compatibility), or 4 (speed), + 1 for a device you don't own which if you had a modern motherboard would just work with a C connector.

      You say you have 7/8 different cables on your desk, I count 3 which would work for all your devices, 4 if you need SS on the top one.

      So where does that leave us? Some of your devices use an obsolete connection technology and yet work just fine even if you had a Macbook with only USB-C connectors. Why do I mention this? Well...

      Seems to me that with USB, one now needs far more different types of cables than back in the days of RS232, parallel port, etc.

      USB has been around for 25 years. It has seen more upgrades than any interface ever. The fact that you have 4 (7?) different cables yet all your devices including your friend's latest and greatest seem to work on your one computer is (excuse my french) fucking amazing. But as to how many cables you have on your device back in the day.

      - Keyboard PS/2
      - Mouse PS/2
      - Printer Centronix
      - RS232 (what did you use this for, was it a "standard" cable with TX/RX/DTR/RTS? Was it a null modem cable? Did it have a DB9 / DB25 adapter? Did you have a serial printer since those were wired differently? Did you use one of the cables with a clock signal? Or the high speed 2 channel cable only available in DB25/DB25?) I mean with this standard alone we have more cable variants than are on your desk right now, and the best part was it was trial an error. Unlike USB just having the ability to plug it in did not at all mean it worked.
      - Gaming port because why not make something completely unique for a joystick.

      I think that covers standard devices but we do so much more these days including external HDDs, and you mentioned evaluation boards so I'll keep going with some nerdier stuff:
      - External SCSI (about the only way to attach external storage to a computer, I can only remember about 6 different connectors but I'm sure there were more which were used for this stuff. including a Centronix connector which I think was one of the most common for PC and a DB25 which was most common for Macs. Along with all these connectors came some 10 different SCSI standards using at least 3 different (electrically) cables with the mixed salad of connectors on the end)
      - Before you had evaluation boards and test equipment on USB, we also had GPIB which was a extensible bus with a stacking connector widely used for evaluation boards and test equipment in labs (much of my gear still has GPIB connectors on the end, though these days I use a USB adapter for them.

      In summary, if you have more cables now with USB than you did back in the good ol' days then you have done something very VERY wrong.

    6. Re:Not Surprising by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      USB3.x A (usually denoted by being blue) is backwards compatible, but is not the same as older A-ports, it has extra contacts that don't touch when a USB1/2 is plugged in.

      --
      horror vacui
  5. Just call it Undetermined Something Blues (USB) by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Would be more honest of them to strike the numbers completely and just state that every USB device is a lottery ticket, and the winners earn a working connection, with the rare 1st prize being "connection at some highish speed".

  6. I thought this was USB-C by DalM · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought this was what USB-C was intended to accomplish.

    Oh, right. It's something else.

    1. Re:I thought this was USB-C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      USB-C is the connector, not the protocol. And not the controller either. That's xHCI, or OHCI, or EHCI, but not AHCI. And USB-C connectors support more than USB but I wouldn't be surprised at some point if we saw devices with USB-C connectors that don't support USB. What a soupy mess.

    2. Re:I thought this was USB-C by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      While USB-C makes sense, there must be a continuous stream of new USB standards in order to sell you more cables, dongles, and adapters.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:I thought this was USB-C by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Huh? Other than USB-C what USB device has ever necessitated you buying an adapter or a cable? My USB 3.1 gen 1 SSD will happily plug into the USB 1.1 socket on a 00s era motherboard with the included cable.

      If USB can be described one way it would be incredibly backwards compatible. Hell that abortion of a USB-B micro 3.0 plug is living proof of that.

    4. Re:I thought this was USB-C by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      Other than USB-C what USB device has ever necessitated you buying an adapter or a cable?

      I agree with your point, but I do in fact have an example. For some idiotic reason, the stereo that came with my car (a 2010 Elantra Touring) provides a female USB Mini-B port for plugging in USB devices like thumb drives and other mass storage devices (or certain phones that can emulate a mass storage device or music).

      Now I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any thumb drives or hard drives that feature a USB Mini B connector, or any phone cables that are USB Mini B on one end and USB Micro B on the other. Not even the dealership had a suitable cable to plug anything into the stereo. I was of course able to get from Amazon some female USB Type A to male USB Mini B adaptors, but it's still just about the dumbest implementation of USB I've ever seen (and necessitated me buying an adaptor).

      Yaz

    5. Re:I thought this was USB-C by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That is an example that's for sure. I've seen something similar now that you mention it, but I can't recall where. In any case that one at least is a breach of the USB standards so it can't really be blamed on USB. Kind of makes me angry like the really early connected "USB" devices which were only USB on the computer end. I still have a box of cables somewhere with all sorts of weird connectors in it for those shitty Sony cameras that I probably should throw away.

      But I bet you as soon as I throw away I find a device which needs it >_

    6. Re:I thought this was USB-C by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      In any case that one at least is a breach of the USB standards so it can't really be blamed on USB.

      Agreed -- my intent was more to share an interesting anecdote on the subject, rather than being an argument about the general point.

      Yaz

  7. WTF? by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just USB 5GBS, USB 10GBS?! Would that be so difficult?!

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:WTF? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why not just USB 5GBS, USB 10GBS?! Would that be so difficult?!

      The obvious answer is to refer to USB 3.1 as USB 3.2 E

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:WTF? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (And why "E"? Did you just pull that out of your ass? If so, why not "USB 3 acx" or some similar alphabet soup like the 802.11 people employ?)

      Because AT&T. I probably should have said 3.0 to 3.2 E, though. My bad.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:WTF? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      What if I'm more interested in the amperage?

    4. Re:WTF? by antdude · · Score: 1

      But would they really go that fast? They don't for me with USB2 and USB3!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Gee whilikers by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Why not add a suffix indicating speed and bandwidth instead of wasting characters with the word Gen?

    I can't wait until I need one of these cables and try to figure out which is which on a site full of third party scammer like Amazon or eBay. /s

  9. Is the number "4" unlucky to them? by kit_triforce · · Score: 1

    It's like they have Atlantis Complex.

    1. Re:Is the number "4" unlucky to them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well the cables are all made in China...

    2. Re:Is the number "4" unlucky to them? by kbrannen · · Score: 2

      China (and countries influenced by it) and Japan consider 4 unlucky.

  10. Intuitive by flatt · · Score: 1

    Makes sense.

  11. We've all seen this before by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part....

    Oh well, whatever the market will bear...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Are these people on drugs? by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, seriously, what kind of drugs does it take to think that this idiocy actually clarifies the situation?

    1. Re:Are these people on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You make the error of assuming that clarity is the goal. The only goal is profit.

  13. And the award for Consumer Confusion goes to... by bbsguru · · Score: 1

    Maybe the trouble has always been that "the committee" has the impression USB is a Brand.
    It's a Standard. Or at least it was supposed to be.
    Then again, it was never even enough of a standard to decide on what kind of connector to use, so...

    How about we fire everybody on the Committee (that's right, you ever-so-noble 'Volunteers') and replace the whole concept with what it should have been. Serial Bus version 8, 9, or whatever makes sense.
    Followed by Dot.Speed.
    ANYthing meaningful, please...

  14. Re:Why are we not doing optical data transfer? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    It's called Fibre Channel and its very expensive.

  15. Isn't the U in USB "Universal"? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    It is to laugh!!

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Isn't the U in USB "Universal"? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is it not? Ironically I can happily plug a USB1.1 device in my USB 3.1 gen 2 (now USB 3.2 gen 2) socket on my motherboard. Likewise any device that comes with a cable that has USB-B socket on the end can plug in any motherboard completely regardless of which standard that socket supports.

  16. Are they bribing USB to fail? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

    While I'm sure there's a lot of nits to pick, I sometimes wonder if the USB standards body is being bribed by somebody to hobble adoption of this standard.

    USB 3.2, er, I mean USB 3.2 2x2, is pretty fast and theoretically could be used as an interconnect for devices that want SAS-3 now, at least on a bandwidth basis, and it's not far off SAS-4 in performance.

    I can almost buy into a conspiracy where the USB standards people are getting bribed into idiotic branding and naming practices to keep the standard down and stop people from getting the idea that you don't need to spend thousands extra on expensive "enterprise" interfaces.

    (OK, I know it's not *really* what some of the expensive enterprise interfaces really are, but it doesn't seem totally unrealistic that you could run a single LTO-7 tape drive connected via USB 3.2 2x2 vs. SAS-3).

    1. Re:Are they bribing USB to fail? by madbrain · · Score: 1

      LTO-7 tape is 300 MBps uncompressed, or 2.4 Gbps. That should work on plain old USB 3.0 (5 Gbps).
      If you let the drive compress the data, in theory it's 750 MBps or 6 Gbps. That should be OK on SAS-2. Or a USB 10 Gbps interface. 20 Gbps isn't really needed.
      SAS-2 PCI-E interfaces can be hard for fairly cheap these days. I have 3 of them at home. PCI-E 3.0 x8 . All purchased under $100. Can't afford the LTO-7 drive, though.

      --
      -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
  17. Re: WTF! a 2x2 is too small! by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Master-Slave JK Flipflop

  18. Re:Really? by darkain · · Score: 2

    oh, like the GeForce 3 Ti200, GeForce 3 Ti500? Or how about a GeForce 2 MX? Or a GeForce 2 Go? Or Pro? Or Ultra? or GTS?

  19. Re:Why are we not doing optical data transfer? by lgw · · Score: 1

    It's called Fibre Channel and its very expensive.

    Fibre channel is a protocol, not a piece of hardware. You can do fibre channel over copper. You can do ethernet over glass.

    I'm not sure what the point of optical USB would be. Optical is slower than copper, and rather pointless until you get to long-haul. If you need to connect distant point, perhaps with some routing in between, use a networking protocol.
     

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  20. USB 4 by crow · · Score: 1

    It's time to give up on USB 3 and rebrand it as USB 4. They can have different speeds as USB 4, USB 4S, and USB 4+. Oh, and to make everyone happy, they should also redefine the HDMI cable as a USB-D cable.

  21. Re: Why Marketing shouldnt be allowed near interne by saloomy · · Score: 1

    No, this is what happens when manufacturers and other people with interests want to confuse the market so that they can present their non-top-of-the-line products as top-of-the-line. "New Motherboard with USB 3.2 Gen1!!!" on the packaging.

  22. Standards by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Situation: There are 14 competing USB standards.
    -Ridiculous! We need to develope one "Universal USB" standard that covers everyone's use cases.
    -Yeah!
    (Soon:) Situation: There are 15 competing USB standards.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Standards by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from."

      Andrew S. Tanenbaum

    2. Re:Standards by IsThisNickTaken · · Score: 1

      I see an XKCD fan: https://xkcd.com/927/

  23. Re:Why are we not doing optical data transfer? by saloomy · · Score: 1

    You can't power the little device at the end with it either. Everything would need a battery or a plug.

  24. Stop letting marketers into the design comity! by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

    FFS, it's worse than the terminology switch from 1080p to 4k. I bet USB cables will be really fun to shop for, because it is so easy now, oh wait..

  25. Could had called it 3.2 gen 3. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Wtf is this shit?
    3.2 gen 3 would had been consistent with previous shit.

    Just calling it 3.2 or 5 would had made the most sense but clearly they don't want transparency they want marketing.

    1. Re: Could had called it 3.2 gen 3. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Or what about usb connector speed.

  26. Re:Why are we not doing optical data transfer? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    over a distance like that it makes pretty much 0 sense to use optical. even if you could put a powerline along with it. it just wouldn't be any faster and would need much more complex hw at either end. if you kept upping the complexity at either end of course you could go higher and higher with the speed.

    like.. why not just do high speed irda then?

    and look. how many 5gbps usb devices you have or are going to have any time soon anyways? I dont't have a single device. I don't have anything to max out the usb 3.0 even.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  27. why don't they just call it by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    USB 5G? That will make everyone happy, because you know, 5G. Everyone wants 5G.

  28. Shades of... by TVmisGuided · · Score: 1

    "In the Nuts (unground), (other than ground nuts) Order, the expression nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than ground nuts, as would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground) (other than ground nuts) by reason of their being nuts (unground)".

    --
    All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
  29. Re:Why are we not doing optical data transfer? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Q: wouldn't the surfaces of the optical wires scratch after repeated use?

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  30. Spec version vs speeds by unixisc · · Score: 1

    The USB document clearly suggested that people not conflate version numbers w/ speeds. For instance, in USB 2.0, something like a keyboard would be a low speed, a printer could be full speed and a disk could be high speed. But all of them would be USB 2.0, regardless of the speed. Similarly, a keyboard built today would be a low speed USB 3.2 keyboard, since the slower speeds are still subsets of the latest spec, unless they have been deprecated. Such as the USB mini port.

    IMO, the best option would be to have the USB speed specified after the term USB for any device. So a USB camcorder might be USB480, while a phone's USB connection might be a USB10K (maybe not use the term G to avoid confusion w/ wireless specs and frequencies). That way, the relevant number is there on a peripheral or cable that tells one what one needs to know about the capabilities or requirements of that peripheral or cable

  31. Re:Why are we not doing optical data transfer? by lgw · · Score: 1

    They're always in a jacket. Fibre channel "cables" are more jacket than optics. That being said, they can still be damaged by crushing or bending past their minimum radius, and when that happens you get a cable that sort of works most of the time, which is quite annoying. Optical really isn't appropriate for something you'll be frequently plugging/unplugging (though not all USB use cases are like that). I've never had a problem with e.g. optical audio connectors between stereo components (another use case that makes little sense).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  32. Meanwhile the only thing we care about is charging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No power standard? No standard for cables? All I want to know is that if I plug my HooliPhone into my FacetendoBrick charger for ten minutes, it'll be good for the whole train ride.

  33. Is USB still relevant ????? by stooo · · Score: 1

    USB is a data bus for peripherials to a computer.
    This model is getting old, most USB peripherials, like smart phones are now full fledged computers in fact.

    So we should just implement an IPv6 and fast charging over USB-C, and make EVERY PERIPHERIAL use case use IPv6 communication instead of using the outdated peripherial-with-drivers-and-silly-file-exchange-protocols !

    In fact, USB-C competes with Ethernet+power on the long run - they should converge to a single connector and protocol !

    --
    aaaaaaa